Using a TLR to Explore MF Photography

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

After taking two B&W darkroom courses and seeing some wonderful prints from MF cameras, I started investigating getting into MF photography myself. I have my own darkroom (with equipment to handle up to 6x7), so processing and printing are not an issue. After some research, it looks like one of the TLRs (say, a Yashica 124G) would be a low-cost way to see if MF suits me. However, I've never shot using a TLR so I haven't had to adjust or correct for parallax. In reading Adams' <em>The Camera</em>, it seems that the way to do so is to frame and compose with the viewing lens and then raise or lower the objective lens to the position of the viewing lens before exposure. Have I understood correctly? Thanks and regards,<br>

Kurt</p>

<p>The closer you are to the subject, the more of a problem parralax error will be. The camera will always expose the picture as seen from about 3" lower than the viewing lens sees it. If it's a landscape shot of a mountain range, it isn't going to make any difference but if it's a close up view of something then it needs to be compemnsated for either by allowing a bit of extra space at the top of the frame or if you want to be more accurate, you could mount it on a tripod and place a mark on the centre column which is equal to the distance the two lenses are appart. <br>

Compose with the column down then raise it to the mark to take the shot.<br>

Mamiya used to sell a Paramender for their TLR cameras which did exactly this.</p>

<p>And Mamiya TLRs have a moving line in the viewfinder that indicates parallax cutoff. But for cameras that focus less closely (like most TLRs that go only down to 80cm or 1m) parallax is not critical -- after all, the viewfinder is not even 100%.</p>

<p>I have a Yashica MAT 124G. It doesn't focus very close, so the parallax problem is no big deal, at least for me. If you are worried about it, you can shoot on a tripod and just change the column height to the approximate location after you're happy with the composition.</p>

<p>Rolleiflexes (I can't remember about 'cords) have a moving mask on the focussing screen as well.<br>

However this is really a non issue with the less than 100% coverage and at the distances that these cameras are usually used at, ie for portraits and landscapes.<br>

For 6x6 slides fair enough, correct for parallax but for prints and 4x4 slides cut from 6x6 don't worry.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, I don't think the regular distances for tlrs' lenses will have a big impact on parallax; I try to change the angle downward a bit, or just hunch lower, when I'm at minimum distance, just as a precaution, though. Farther out shouldn't be an issue.<br>

If you want to do closeup work, you can buy 3 different sets of closeup Rollei lenses called Rolleinars for different closeup distances (make sure they're the same bay mount as your camera) and also buy a viewing lens called a Rolleipareil that adjusts for parallax. There's comprehensive info about these elsewhere in photo.net. The Rolleinars are very good quality.</p>

<p>For the same money that a good working, used TLR will cost you ($100-200). You can find a used SLR, and not worry about any of this.</p>

<p>I love using my Mamiya TLRs (C3/220/330). Parallax is only an issue when focussing at, say, less than 4 feet. The Mamiyas have various devices to show the parallax error, e.g. lines scribed on the viewfinder screen and moving pointers on later models. I don't have the Paramender - I just compose and then raise the tripod head by 45 mm (I think that's the difference between lens centres, if I remember rightly).</p>

<p>I would read the manual for the specific TLR you are using. My Rolleiflex manual says I don't have to worry about it, and I never have. Most of my photography is at farther distances, but even when occasionally using the Rolleinar close-up lenses at distances under 2' I've had no parallax problems. </p>

<p>TLRs are wonderful. I can fit everything I need in my smallest camera bag. It's as compact and portable as a 35mm SLR.</p>

<p>Thank you for the replies so far. It hadn't occurred to me that parallax would be proportionately greater the closer the subject, but it certainly follows. I also didn't realize the viewfinder for TLRs would cover less than 100% - I can mechanically correct for parallax but not coverage. I haven't decided on TLR vs SLR but I was working from this remark in <em><a href="../equipment/medium-format/choosing">Choosing a Medium Format Camera</a></em>: "If you're poor, you might consider a twin-lens reflex such as the Yashica 124 or Mamiya." I'm not committed to one or the other, though; still gathering information.</p>

<p>""""If you're poor, you might consider a twin-lens reflex such as the Yashica 124 or Mamiya."""</p>

<p>This might have been the case a decade or so ago. MFSLR cameras are now at all time low prices. You can piece-meal a kit (body,lens,back,VF) online for a song these days. A Bronica, Mamiya or Pentax 645 can be had for under $200. MFSLR's with eye level VF's, are much easier to transition to from 35MM than TLR's. The TLR's backwards VF alone can drive you insane if you aren't ready for it.</p>

<p>I think the problem of the TLR backwards viewfinder thing is overblown. Takes a bit to get used to it but no big deal. I find composing on ground glass is easier than a prism viewfinder. Somehow looking at an image on the screen as opposed to looking through a hole lets me 'see' the final image more easily. I think the ground glass allows you to better visualize what the scene will look like in 2D.</p>

<p>The big advantage of at least some TLRs is the small size and weight. </p>

<p>Oh dear. Just saw the article date: "Article created 1999." Perhaps the MFSLR route is the way to go at this point. Or I could be <a href="http://goo.gl/SjbkY">stupid</a>.</p>

<p>A TLR was my own entry into MF. </p>

<p>A typical TLR is inexpensive (though the 2.8 Rolleiflex you've linked to on Ebay is an exception), simple, compact, quiet, uses no batteries, and many people really like the big groundglass for composing.</p>

<p>But there are many ways into medium-format, from inexpensive to high-dollar, from SLR to TLR to rangefinder to folding rangefinder.... Any of the MF camera types, assuming a good lens and a good photographer using them, can take great photos. Big negatives rock.</p>

<p>Do you have any way to borrow a TLR locally? Run a roll through, see if you like it, before you buy. If you can do that, that's the way I'd go.</p>

<p>Or.... buy a TLR (with a good reputation) from an online camera store with a good reputation.</p>

<p>Personally, I shoot film and digital. When I shoot film it's either panoramic 35mm in a Widelux, or medium-format. My favorite medium format cameras are Rollei TLRs, or a Kodak Medalist (big heavy rangefinder, 6x9 neg). In fact, I'm planning a kayak trip down the Grand Canyon in 2012, and if I shoot it on film, I'll use either the Medalist or a Rolleiflex, or both.</p>

<p>I started out with a Rolleicord TLR, and then bought a cheap Yashica TLR. Later I bought a Rolleiflex to replace the Yashica, which was broken after it fell on concrete due to a strap failure. I would buy a TLR to try out first. They are lightweight compared to MF SLR cameras, and they generally offer the user a good introduction to medium format photography. I have ended up deciding that the TLR is my favorite form of MF camera.</p>

<p>Old funky TLR's are fun to shoot. Especially if all you are looking to do is play around a bit. Go for the TLR. Especially in light of the fact that these can be had for under a $100.<br /> However, SLR's are part of "systems". And leave open many shooting options such as macro, telephotography etc.</p>

<p>The good news is that if you buy low, you can always recover your investment if you decide MF isn't for you.</p>

<p>Yep, a TLR was my "gate-way" into MF as well.</p>

<p>I've recently (beginning summer '10 - "finished" in december '10) assembled a great Mamiya RB67 Pro-S kit with 2 lenses and LOVE IT! However, i really enjoy my little Minolta Autocord too. My Autocord is soooo light and simple to use and i'll likely not part with it.</p>

<p>The waist-level-(view)finder took some getting used to, but i really like it. The ground glass is huge and the frame looks almost 3D. A definite, huge improvement over my 35mm slr's and they have excellent viewfinders for that class of camera.</p>

<p>There is another thread currently running about "a return to TLRs" which might offer some useful comments. http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Y5w4</p>

<p>SLRs offer more precise viewing and only a few TLRs have interchangeable lenses; but as owner of a Bronica SQ-A and a Yashica 124G, i would go with the TLR if I was trying to do candid street shots or generally be unobtrusive. With the large mirrors, MFSLRs tend to sound like gun shots compared with TLR leaf shutters. For infrared or other work using dense filters, the TLR enables composing without removing the filter too.</p>

<p>I browsed the used Mamiya 645 and Bronica ETRS SLRs. They look nice, but I'm going to stick to the entry-level TLRs. I'm eyeballing a Yashica 124 or 124G and a sweet-looking Zeiss-Ikon Ikoflex. My notion is to trade the flexibility of SLRs for the simplicity of TLRs so I can focus on the craft, mechanics and skills of MF photography. The slow, plodding, methodical approach suits my learning style. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, though.</p>

<p>I read the <a href="00Y5w4">"return to TLRs" thread</a> before my original post. I have no opinion on whether or not there is resurgent interest in film and other analog photography elements. I am, however, amused with the digital fanboys and the hostility toward film. Personally, while I am interested in using quality tools, I'm much more interested in creating powerful, moving images. As David du Chemin says, "Gear is good. Vision is better." I'll let others fight religious wars.</p>

<p>One annoying (to some) aspect of both rangefinder cameras and TLR's. Is their lack of depth of field previewing ability. Unfortunately (almost) all TLR viewing lenses lack apertures. Of course with many old school TLR's that utilize 3 and 4 element lenses. One needs to stop down several stops to assure sharpness. And this of course will increase DoF.</p>

<p>DoF is always a crap shoot of sorts when it cannot be actually viewed.</p>

<p>I use my Mamiya C220 with the 55mm lens at less than a foot for closeup work with excellent results. As with any camera or lens combination there are always variables that you will have to factor in. I am aware of the parallax issue and have never really missed any shots because of it. In my case I shoot a lot of b/w with the C220 and I develop the film myself. The times when I am working on a project that is critical I will likely take a couple exposures anyway and that is what I tend to do with closeup work on the C220. It is worth it because the results are generally very good. If it is not critical work, then I just have fun with it and I will either crop if I over adjusted or simply live with the composition. Good luck in your journey and just have fun. </p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone for the input and discussion. My original question about compensating for parallax was well and truly answered: not a serious issue except for closeups; raising/lowerng the objective lens a distance equal to the center-to-center distance between the two lenses is the appropriate adjustment.<br>

I ended up buying a sound-looking Yashica Mat-124G on eBay. Looked a little dusty but otherwise seemed to be in great shape. Followed that up with a Gossen Luna-Pro SBC meter. Perhaps a new Sekonic would be better, but the Luna-Pro was well spoken of here.</p>

<p>124G is a classic, very good choice. Get a good ambient light reading and go for it. I've used the sunny-16 rule with negative film often with great results, no meter necessary. But I carry my Minolta Auto IVF with me anyway to confirm my guess.</p>

 

 

<p>"Followed that up with a Gossen Luna-Pro SBC meter. Perhaps a new Sekonic would be better, but the Luna-Pro was well spoken of here."<br>

Not necessarily. I recently purchased a Sekonic L558, the top model a few years ago. I've had to calibrate it to a Gossen Super Pilot, which is dead-on with slide film.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Kurt -</p>

<p>I hope you enjoy your 124G. I started photography with a Nikon FE. Because I was used to a 'system' camera, I affordably entered the MF world with a C330 and several lenses. Because I live within an hour or two of Delaware Ohio I ended up purchasing a Ciro Flex TLR just for the fun of it. This was in the early to mid-2000's. With shipping I ended up paying about $20.</p>

<p>After having said all that, if someone reading this thread in the future is contemplating jumping into the MF film world, a Ciro Flex is a very, very economical way to see if you like it. If you use a fast color negative film or Ilford XP2 Super for B&W, you really don't even need a meter to get a feel for the TLR world.</p>

<p>Mark</p>